The Butler
Cecil Gaines had the opportunity to serve 8 presidents during his time at the white house. The film was adequate, but there were some great aspects, including the incorporation of his later years and the election of the first black president. After watching this film, I felt a new respect toward black Americans and specifically those who have contributed to the on going civil rights movement (African Americans are still not completely equal even today). The Butler made me realize how far we have really come. Just 50 years ago the Civil Rights movement was in full swing and Cecil was not provided the same opportunities and rights as hes provided today. As time progressed in the white house, he saw the changes taking place from an even more interesting perspective. Lastly, the election of Barack Obama must have been an epiphanic moment for not only Cecil himself, but for all African Americans familiar with the past and history of the United States. Although this film was not one of my favorite class films, it did help me realize the importance of having a black president for the first time, and the effort and emotion that came with it, even many years before his time in office.

The Helper 
Although a touching story, this film did not capture my interest. There was just too little happening. Other films have been able to grab my interest without including much action and interesting scenes, but this film failed to do so. The one thing this film does right is the accurate portrayal of African Americans in that particular geological area, during that time period. This film does not mask any of the true characteristics of African Americans during that time, including speech and behavior. This is a truly honest portrayal of southern African Americans and I appreciate that.
The Jim Crow Laws in the south are today considered inhumane and ideologically wrong. Black and White humans were truly separate according to the laws and execution of the laws. Many white southerners justified these laws by saying yes they were separate, but EQUAL. However, equality did not exist among the races in the south and even today we see similarities. For example there was a law that stated whites could not marry blacks, but today we laws that exist that don't allow for same-sex marriage. Although not supportive of homosexuality, I do believe people should have the choice to make decisions involving sexual preference and marriage. Every human should be treated equally, and although African Americans have come a long way, America has still not excepted everyone.

Today, you could make an argument for either side answering the question "are African Americans truly better off today than they were previous to the Civil Rights Movement. In my opinion African American's still face unfairness and inequality in many different aspects of life, but are provided with equally biased opportunities as well. For example African Americans have a much better chance of getting accepted into colleges and graduate school (like Med school) solely based on race. Disagree or agree, America has come a long way (We even have an African American President!), but challenges still exist for many minorities living in the United States.  

The Pianist
This film has provided me with a new perspective on the horrors of the holocaust and what it was truly like to be persecuted and mistreated. I normally do not say this about many films, but The Pianist was almost hard for me to watch. It was gruesome not graphically, but psychologically. It is hard to imagine that people could treat others this way and get away with it. It is one thing to read or hear stories about the Holocaust, but it is seeing the violence that actually sheds light on the true magnitude of the inhumanity that took occurred in the ghettos. The only other film that has made me feel this way was The Passion of The Christ, an equally sad but influential film. Lastly, was the actor playing Wladyslaw Szpilman really playing the piano?

I believe Hosenfeld saved Wladyslaw Szpilman to justify his previous (and possibly future) guilt about the cruelty and violence he was condoning. He probably saw an innocent man, who had no reason to be killed. In addition, the general may of had an epiphany and probably realized his actions were wrong and needed religious or just moral forgiveness. Szpilman would risk any opportunity to survive. I believe he saw the German general as an opportunity to make it out alive, after all he had an even smaller chance of survival hiding and providing on his own, without the help and protection of other individuals. He took the risky chance of trusting Hosenfeld, but it is the reason he survived.

Defiance
Defiance is an inspirational film and at times hard to watch. I embraced the courageousness and perseverance of over a thousand jews stranded in a forest for over a year. I can't even imagine myself going through an ordeal such as theirs without either breaking down mentally or physically. Not only did these people successfully hide from the Nazis for a very long time, but they also fought back against the Germans when they were discovered in the forest, something fairly uncommon at the time for Jews in Europe to do. They surprised the Germans with overwhelming force at the end of the film and were able to save over a thousand jews from inhumane acts. The surviving Jews saved many more jews intangibly and are remembered today for what they did in that hostile forest.
I agree partially with both because in my opinion, violence must be avoided unless completely necessary for survival, which would relate to their situation. Violence is justifiable for them to survive against the Germans, but it is unnecessary to kill innocent people like the Germans.
These are related because they have the opportunity to kill Germans, but that does not literally mean kill random Germans.
I do not agree with Bielskis and it is cliche to say fighting back is just as bad as the true killers. It was necessary to kill Germans in order to survive. They were in no way doing wrong by killing Germans and are probably saving many more lives by doing so. Other instances of murder may not be as justifiable.
I agree completely with Obama's statement regarding evil and force. However I disagree with Simon's statement explaining that evil only causes more evil. There is no way the Holocost could of been stopped by a nonviolent movement. IF hitler was willing to go to such lengths to try and abolish an entire religion, what makes you think words or even protesting would stop him? It just isn't realistic to say that negotiations and a nonviolent movement could of stopped the horrors that took place